Jump to content

Airfix 1/72 Phantom FG.1 in Stock at Hornby


VMA131Marine

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, Phone Phixer said:

An armourer has entered the room!

In 1/72 modelling terms, there is no difference.

The British version was known as a CBTE, Carrier Bomb Triple Ejector. The angle between the 3 bomb racks (ERU's) was more on the CBTE to cater for the increased diameter of British 1,000lb bombs. There were a few small differences for the different fuzing systems aswell.

The CBTE was bolted to a multiple weapons adapter, as shown in the diagrams in Johns post #443. The MWA was then bolted to the pylon. In the case of the inboard pylons, it was the same location for the Lau 7a Sidewinder launchers. Hence, with the use of longer attachment bolts, you could have the combo of MWA/CBTE and Lau 7a's.

The FAA seemed to use this fit, the RAF not so much, if at all.

As a result of all this bolting of stuff together, normal weapon release was from the bomb racks in the CBTE. In the brown underpants moments when everything needed jettisoning rapidly, the pylons et all were dropped off courtesy of an explosive bolt that held the pylon to the wing.

 

Hope that helps.

 

Rob.

 

The armourer has left the room (uh- huh, thank you very much) (why is there no Elvis emoticon)

 

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello All

 

Looking at those pictures John (Canberrakid) posted I'm confused. Are the Sparrow launch rails at the bottom of "Shoulder Pylons" removable? I spent hours scratch building them for my Tamiya 1/32 F-4J...

 

Kind Regards,

Antti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Antti_K said:

Hello All

 

Looking at those pictures John (Canberrakid) posted I'm confused. Are the Sparrow launch rails at the bottom of "Shoulder Pylons" removable? I spent hours scratch building them for my Tamiya 1/32 F-4J...

 

Kind Regards,

Antti

Antti I'm no Plumber but from what I can see that is the case, if they are the same as the ones on the USN F.4's?

pSdeAQ.jpg

pSdk7x.jpg

John

Edited by canberra kid
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Phone Phixer said:

The CBTE was bolted to a multiple weapons adapter, as shown in the diagrams in Johns post #443. The MWA was then bolted to the pylon. In the case of the inboard pylons, it was the same location for the Lau 7a Sidewinder launchers. Hence, with the use of longer attachment bolts, you could have the combo of MWA/CBTE and Lau 7a's.

The FAA seemed to use this fit, the RAF not so much, if at all.

Hope that helps.

Rob.

 

The armourer has left the room (uh- huh, thank you very much) (why is there no Elvis emoticon)

That explains this apparent lash-up I saw many times on 892 and PTF's aircraft .  We had no code to put on the Big Board so we just used LOS (Lots of Stuff):unsure:

 

tApVf2K.jpg

Dennis

Note just the single AIM-9 rail mounted inboard.

 

 

Edited by sloegin57
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank You John (again):)

 

So the manual says "...Sparrow III launching rail is an integral part of the pylon fairing". Do I understand it correctly when I say that one can't remove the Sparrow launch rail? I used close up photos of a FG.1 pylon without the launching rail for my Hasegawa FG.1. These photos match with the picture on manual page 6-2 Fig. 3.

 

I also checked the pylon location using the information you provided. It seems that Tamiya placed them (shoulder pylons) 2 millimeters too far out... Same goes for the outer pylons (tanks) which I re-located a few millimeters closer to centerline. This manual possibly has information of that also... It would be nice to know the location of the outer (tank) pylons. Please John:)

 

Funny but Tamiya got the measurement between centerline and wing fold spot on.

 

Kind Regards,

Antti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Antti_K said:

Thank You John (again):)

 

So the manual says "...Sparrow III launching rail is an integral part of the pylon fairing". Do I understand it correctly when I say that one can't remove the Sparrow launch rail? I used close up photos of a FG.1 pylon without the launching rail for my Hasegawa FG.1. These photos match with the picture on manual page 6-2 Fig. 3.

 

I also checked the pylon location using the information you provided. It seems that Tamiya placed them (shoulder pylons) 2 millimeters too far out... Same goes for the outer pylons (tanks) which I re-located a few millimeters closer to centerline. This manual possibly has information of that also... It would be nice to know the location of the outer (tank) pylons. Please John:)

 

Funny but Tamiya got the measurement between centerline and wing fold spot on.

 

Kind Regards,

Antti

If I may attempt to answer this Antti_K.  If you mean by "shoulder pylons", the inboard pylons, then they are 81.5 inches (2.07m) outboard of the centreline of the aircraft.  The outboard pylons are 132.5 inches (3.3655m) outboard of the centreline.

 

I am a bit puzzled by your reference to - " Do I understand it correctly when I say that one can't remove the Sparrow launch rail?".  The Sparrow  (AIM-7) launcher is/was in the base of the inboard pylon and was part of the pylon :-

iYd7OZv.jpg

USS America 1967

ijS4JzZ.jpg

Hope that this helps

 

Dennis

 

Further to the above - this may help :-

From the Crew Chiefs handbook for F/RF-4C/D/E

Ll3Oerg.jpg

 

 

 

Edited by sloegin57
Additonal diagram
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, totally agree with what Dennis says about inboard pylons and sparrow rails.

The bottom lip of the pylon was shaped to form a rail, not that it was very obvious. If you didn't know about it, you would easily miss that it was meant as a launch rail.

 

Rob.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank You Dennis and Rob:)

 

I used the term "Shoulder Pylon" because many U.S. Navy and USMC personnel call them that. In my opinion "Inboard Pylon" sounds better. Your answers about the launch rail helped indeed.

 

I calculated the position of the outer pylon from a photo and placed it 104,5 millimeters from the centerline. The data Dennis provided gives 105,12 millimeters in 1/32 scale so it is pretty close. Originally the kit's outer pylons are 109 millimeters from the centerline. Now I have to decide what to do with the inner pylons. It requires more work on panel lines etc. if I move it.

 

Kind Regards,

Antti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 26.1.2018 at 2:58 AM, sloegin57 said:

They started moving the serials under the wing inboard around '74/'75 when the problems with the outer wings started being detected and outer wing changes began  Not all aircraft had them moved.  Even as late as '83 when I left the Service, there were still a few around.  Removing them all together only started when the grey scheme came in.  The Xtradecal sheet states that one of 892's had the serial under wing painted out - not so.

 

Dennis 

Regarding underwing serials on the Xtradecal sheet - the one they say that had been painted out refers to XV590 after some 'modifications' by the USN. This is the aircraft with the "COLONIAL NAVY" writing on the fuselage plus other additions. Painting over the underwing serials was part of this - apparently the serial was replaced with something else but I do not know what it was. My only picture of this aircraft in this condition shows the letter 'F' (possibly hand-painted) on the folded left outer wing panel.

Edited by Ingo Degenhardt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Ingo Degenhardt said:

 apparently the serial was replaced with something else but I do not know what it was. My only picture of this aircraft in this condition shows the letter 'F' (obiously hand-painted) on the folded left outer wing panel.

 

"FLY NAVY"..?

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ingo Degenhardt said:

Regarding underwing serials on the Xtradecal sheet - the one they say that had been painted out refers to XV590 after some 'modifications' by the USN. This is the aircraft with the "COLONIAL NAVY" writing on the fuselage plus other additions. Painting over the underwing serials was part of this - apparently the serial was replaced with something else but I do not know what it was. My only picture of this aircraft in this condition shows the letter 'F' (obiously hand-painted) on the folded left outer wing panel.

Ingo, is this the photograph that you are referring to ? :-

 

be495sD.jpg

 

Dennis

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Antti_K said:

Hello Ingo!

 

I've seen these hand painted stripes on other British Phantoms also. In those examples they were over painted screw / bolt lines. Some form a letter "F" and other an "E". 

 

Kind Regards,

Antti

Hi Anti,

now that is an explanation I have not yet come across....thank you.:goodjob:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Antti_K said:

Hello Ingo!

 

I've seen these hand painted stripes on other British Phantoms also. In those examples they were over painted screw / bolt lines. Some form a letter "F" and other an "E". 

 

Kind Regards,

Antti

Antti - I suspect that this isn't hand painted stripes, I think it's bare metal where paint has been removed.

At some point British Phantoms had a mod in this position with strengthening doubler straps being fitted, I don't think the straps have been fitted yet in this photo, but the problem that resulted in the mod is obviously present and being monitored.

Ref also Dennis' photo in post 455 above and also posts 240, 205 and 190 in this thread for other photos of this problem.

Given the above I don't think this is is part of the "zapping", also it looks a bit crude compared to the neatness of the rest of the changes. There "may" have been some zapping going on on the underside, but I wouldn't take that photo as evidence of either painting out of the serial or something written on the wing underside.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An excellent photo Scimitar, thank you:) And here we can see the "stripes" Ingo asked about. Note that the area around them on the starboard wing is cleaned. But "Aluminized Corogard" paint or bare metal?

 

Kind Regards,

Antti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/26/2018 at 4:43 PM, Dave Fleming said:

Having had a couple of weeks to fondle the parts, I must admit me feelings are a bit 'meh'. OK, it's an RN/RAF Phantom, but it doesn't come over as a 2018 kit. Airfix have done a lot better in many areas in recent years. It's not the stellar improvement over the Fujimi kit I'd hoped for.

 

My feelings exactly, Dave.  I just got mine (x2), and I was impressed with the engineering and the many options in the kit, but was disappointed in the molding – the panel lines are soft, and the fit of more than a few  parts required more fiddling than I anticipated (enjoyable modeling though).

 

The missing vents aside, I was surprised that Airfix had some other miscues, like: having seams on both sides of the wing tanks (should only be on left side of both tanks); having no lines separating the canopies from the frames (only on the one piece canopy);  not molding recesses in the folding outer wing pieces to mate with the main wing (Airfix “fixed” this in the instructions by having us file off the protrusions that were to have gone into the recesses); and including  funny TERs and pylons as Murph pointed out. Also, the stabilator slots are too lightly done, and the representation of the pieces that hold the slots proud of the stab appear to be lined up perpendicular to the leading edge instead of properly being parallel to the longitudinal axis of the acft (shades of the Academy 1/48 Phantom). I say “appear” because I had a hard time telling for certain owing to the indistinct moldings.  

 

I'm enjoying the build, but think I'll hold off getting more copies as I had initially planned, and instead look to my Fujimi stash to explore cross-kitting.

 

Gene K

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dave Swindell said:

Antti - I suspect that this isn't hand painted stripes, I think it's bare metal where paint has been removed.

At some point British Phantoms had a mod in this position with strengthening doubler straps being fitted, I don't think the straps have been fitted yet in this photo, but the problem that resulted in the mod is obviously present and being monitored.

Ref also Dennis' photo in post 455 above and also posts 240, 205 and 190 in this thread for other photos of this problem.

Given the above I don't think this is is part of the "zapping", also it looks a bit crude compared to the neatness of the rest of the changes. There "may" have been some zapping going on on the underside, but I wouldn't take that photo as evidence of either painting out of the serial or something written on the wing underside.

Dave is in the right ballpark, if you will excuse an "Americanism".  It is not a letter 'F'.  The area shown in the photograph of R-001 on board the Ark is an area that has been cleaned of paint so that an NDI (Non-Destructive Inspection) be carried out and indicate the beginnings of the problems that the Phantoms had with the outer mainplanes.  On the Royal Navy aircraft, this was as far as it got.  The initial inspection was what was called a "Dye Penetrant" inspection where by the area to be inspected would have the paint removed, the area thoroughly cleaned with MEK or Trichlorethylene, dried and over sprayed with a red dye from an aerosol can.  The dye was allowed to do its work and after 10 or 15 minutes was cleaned of using a propriety and non-invasive cleaner.  A white "Developer" was then sprayed, aerosol can again,  and allowed some fifteen minutes to act.  The developer's action draws any remaining dye entrant out of any cracks an indicates their existence as fine red lines.  If no cracks were present, then no lines appear and the component being test is cleared for further use..

 

The second and later method was "Eddy Current" where an electrical signal was generated by a probe which was passed over the area being tested.  A gel was used to enhance the signal.  Any defect within the component showed up as a spike on an oscilloscope.

 

The Dye Penetrant system is shown in use in the attached photograph :-

eK7RVk1.jpg

The aircraft on the left has had the dye applied.  On the right, the Technician is removing the dye preparatory to applying the Developer.

 

All the Royal Navy aircraft had these areas to be examined covered between inspections with a layer of lanolin.  A few had primer applied, some had both.  RAF aircraft were similar.  The shapes of the area to be examined varied dependent on the individual who removed the paint in the first place - varieties below :- 

Lmdu4AQ.jpg

 

iAF0hEi.jpg

 

TyN0Y7N.jpg

 

RAtxZ6y.jpg

The above is XT864 - the Airfix kit

 

As part of the RN/RAF transfer programme, strengthened outer mainplanes were fitted.  The photo below shows the initial stage of plating which, due to the fact that problems still arose, resulted in the degree of repair indicated on the kit outer mainplanes.

After that, I believe that BAe manufactured new, internally re-designed mainplanes, but by that time I was long gone. :-

DdaXO7G.jpg

 

Which is a long way of saying,  "The serials under the wings of XV590 were not painted out".

 

I think that it is about time that Xtradecal and Hannants got their act together.  If you don't like being criticised, 'Suck it up Buttercup !'

 

Dennis 

Edited by sloegin57
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Dennis,

thank you for the detailed information - that settles the matter for me.

Good example of how wrong one can be - taking maintenance work for a letter F.

So for a 1978 FG.1 on Ark Royal I will have to remove the reinforcement plates from the outer wings of the Airfix kit, right?

Ingo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ingo Degenhardt said:

Hi Dennis,

thank you for the detailed information - that settles the matter for me.

Good example of how wrong one can be - taking maintenance work for a letter F.

So for a 1978 FG.1 on Ark Royal I will have to remove the reinforcement plates from the outer wings of the Airfix kit, right?

Ingo

To be accurate - yes, but it's your model,  I have not yet decided whether or not I will with mine or how I'll do it if I do so if you do let us all know please.

 

Dennis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the NDI and re-enforcing strip explanation Dennis. I’ve been working with these weird bods on and off for nearly thirty years now and that’s the best I’ve ever read about their mysterious craft! 

 

Once again, some excellent photographs to accompany your notes and details. We are all very much more Phantom savvy with your knowledgeable input. 

 

Cheers.. Dave 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just Brilliant! Thank You Dennis:) Now we can create even more detailed Phantoms.

 

I wasn't talking about letters being painted on the under surfaces at the first place. I tried to say that these treated areas look like a letter (E or F). I'm okay with that when someone criticises my opinions for a good reason. 

 

Kind Regards,

Antti

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Antti_K said:

This is just Brilliant! Thank You Dennis:) Now we can create even more detailed Phantoms.

 

I wasn't talking about letters being painted on the under surfaces at the first place. I tried to say that these treated areas look like a letter (E or F). I'm okay with that when someone criticises my opinions for a good reason. 

 

Kind Regards,

Antti

It was me who thought that to be a letter.:nod:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...